Books on Story StructureStory Structure Books
The structure of the story has become a mystery. We' ve got gullible professionals, folks with sound references who tell us the structure of the story. A lot of arguments that the structure of the story comes in 1 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 or even 9 files! Some say that the structure of history is a legend. Blinds Man's BluffThey say that we should not worry about the structure in our histories.
The new authors go from subject to subject, from author to subject, volume to volume, script writing boat camps to gibberish seminars, never to a truths they can use. First the structure is a mystery, now it is a contradiction. "Steve Jobs In recent times, Hollywood story analysis specialist Syd Field pinpointed and layed the foundation for a structure pattern of screens.
Following the first series of screenplay writers (who in turn were taken from classical play and Aristotle), he named them "acts", which in history functioned as "construction, confronting and dissolution". Said that these were incidents that revolve the story as it delves into every single act.
Later on he recognized a "center" that reinforced the dynamics of history towards dissolution. Several of the new pundits identify a transformative "character sheet" for the main characters, which is absolutely necessary for a story to be made. Then, others found succesful tales with non-transforming characters. So what was the story structure of that thing anyway?
Sid Field's books have been declared evil! "Karl KrausThere is a classical Flatland by Edwin A. Abbot, released in 1880, which is the story of a two-dimensional being, a squares that lives in a two-dimensional universe, that discover that it actually lives in three different sizes, and that it really is a dice. The story of the men who are blindfolded is remembered, all of whom describe an animal by sensing parts within their grasp.
Had there been a way to get the most out of every story structure element descriptive, what could it be? Coincidentally, there is a view of the structure that allows this: The LevelsNetworks names both physically and logically based topics. Physics is the same as the look of the board, while logic is the look of the board as it works on the board.
Essentially, the physically is important and necessary because of the environments in which the networks must work. Logic is the topic that counts, because it even existed, the why. Physics deals with the bearing of dates or significance and logic with what is borne, that "meaning" to which we relate.
"parallels between computer networking topology and script structure are amazing. "To" carry" a plane, the corporeal network: in the narrative structure, the corporeal occurrences or the action. One layer for what is worn, the data: in the story structure, what the story means. However, to comprehend why it works, you need to include two more dimensions: deep to distinguish them from the second one - for amount of information or significance; and space to expand the first three and allow the change or development of information or significance.
The story can be an overall (not an act/1 act), trousers and a blouse (2 acts), a three-piece wetsuit (3 acts) or, like Diane Keaton in Annie Hall, a free, layered/accessoried look (4 - 9 acts and beyond), but deeply inside it must still be a unique, uniform, transforming film.
But inside the bone the DNA, the personality, the meaning, a different story, and each bone is inimitable. Tales are not only countless rows of interconnected and endlessly varied incidents, which nevertheless represent a simple story. There is a story to be told in the Artic with the Inuit, in an Igloo, in South Africa, in a Kral, in Buckingham Palace itself.
She can tell the story of My Dinner With André, in a singular act, or she can tell the story of Four Weddings and a Funeral (who have some schizoid analysis difficulties in agreeing whether there are three or five acts). Yet in the two above example, one can also discover a structure of meanings that consists of three discreet parts (or actions).
The elephant in spaceThe screenplay's structure makes "carrying" at the interface or action levels in any group of elements that the author considers necessary and which enables the story to work. On the other side, the logic of scripts works on one layer below the screen and is always and only to be found in three parts.
Logic layer, the layer of significance, is below the actual layer or plotter layer, since the significance, if useful, is not known. Indeed, if it is done well, it is sub pink, disguised, and must be guessed from the incidents of the action or deduced. If the significance is obscured, an endless significance can be deduced.
Really, yes, because the significance does not come from the story, but from the observer, from all onlookers. Larger and other meanings, even opposite meanings of the same beholders in the course of their life. There is no sense in the story, but only a code that is decoded and then understood by every observer in every contemplation, on the basis of the experiences of his own life.
This is why authors are often able to find surprisingly new meanings in their own histories. "Significance is hidden, it can be deduced from it. "So how is the significance of history communicated at this lower and logical levels? Either the main character changes, turns, as a consequence of the historical event, or he neglects to change, despite the need for it.
But in this case, the significance is still changing. Wherever it is, where the significance of history really does exist, it changes in the public. There is therefore a transform of significance, and it is expressed in the three parts, the three "actions", in which a character faces a predicament (1), faces it (2) and finally either manages it or does not solve it (3).
"There' s a translation of meanings, and it is expressed in the three parts. "Logically, there are always three of them. This is the easiest way to fully communicate the importance. It' s also the basic structure to be found in man's reasoning: paradigm, dialectics, jokes, all of them work in three.
This allows the author to physically construct an action in any desired configurations, any desired numeration of parts, provided that it works for his public. "There are three levels to the value of the multi-level narrative structure concept: It provides authors with the opportunity to quickly analyze both their own narrative concepts (for study) and their own narrative concepts (for analysis).
This provides an enjoyable and rewarding story time. Do not make any mistakes, the actual structure and the logic structure are always available in useful plants. Occasionally, the logic is exactly the same as the physics. To test the idea that the structure of a story is bound to the character is to choose a story that is a success, ask yourself whose story it is, and design the transformational bow that this character either goes through or does not go through when he needs it.
"Who' s story is this? "This is the most important issue in defining the structure of a story. Structure consciousness is only good for authors for all this. Surely the audience would rather not know the structure of a loved story, because it removes the play's magical elements and slay it.
Well, structure is for authors. As we have stressed, it is useful for the concept, for the effectiveness and later, when the story is made, for the unit and for the focal point. "The audience would rather not know the structure of a loved story. It' important not only to help authors work their way through vast blocs of stories.
And thanks to this mode of operation at the lower levels of significance, it will help the audience to understand their own life. Therefore, both the interface, the structure on the physics layer and the lower structure on the logic layer are useful. Some help authors find a way to tell the story and others help authors find a way to tell the story.